Do you think psychiatric care is inadequate in the US?

PMFB-RN, RN · Dec 19, 2012

Here, I'll give you a quick defnitition:
Gas-operated, magazine-fed or belt-fed, semi-automatic...
Get rid of those three elements and you'll have eliminated the weapons of primary concern, including the mini-14, as well as many handguns.

*** Who's definition is that? Did you just make it up? How do you propose to get rid of elements?

Go a step further and limit capacity to 5 rounds...

*** That would eliminate all the revolvers (six shooters) nearly all handguns, the majority of traditional small game hunting rifles (.22's), and many many very old hunting rifles like the 30-30 Winchester 94. Doesn't sound like realiety to me.

In my view such a limit would violate the 2nd Amendment which seeks to protect the possesion of personal arms "of current type".

Restrictions on weapons is not the whole solution nor will it prevent such atrocities but I don't see that it can be rationally argued that it wouldn't reduce their number and severity.
Let's try it and see...

*** Doesn't change the fact that functionaly there isn't much difference. One can get off a lot of shots with a traditional pump action or lever action rifle. While in combat with the army I learned that the most dangerous personal weapon to face was a pump shotgun or (even worse) a scoped bolt action centerfire rifle in the hands of a person who knew how to use them.

In any event I can't see how any ban will affect the availabiliety of the firearms banned. We had a ban from 1994 until 2004 and at no time were the banned firearms not readily available in local sporting goods shops or gun shops. Same was true for high capasity magzines. The only people inconvienced where the law abiding shooters who had to pay higher prices for them.

Music in My Heart · Dec 19, 2012

Here, I'll give you a quick defnitition:
Gas-operated, magazine-fed or belt-fed, semi-automatic...
Get rid of those three elements and you'll have eliminated the weapons of primary concern, including the mini-14, as well as many handguns.
*** Who's definition is that? Did you just make it up? How do you propose to get rid of elements?

Make it up? Nope. You pointed out the absurdity of banning "assault weapons" so I just spend a second thinking about the features that make a weapon particularly efficient, even in the hands of a shooter with limited skill... I looked at the primary difference between my mini-14 and a Winchester 94 knock-off that I'm saving up for.

How do I propose getting rid of the elements? Easy... simply declare illegal any weapon with any of those features.

The point is, the problem isn't one of difficulty defining the weapon, it's simply a matter of political will and personal/national philosophy.

Go a step further and limit capacity to 5 rounds...
*** That would eliminate all the revolvers (six shooters) nearly all handguns, the majority of traditional small game hunting rifles (.22's), and many many very old hunting rifles like the 30-30 Winchester 94. Doesn't sound like realiety to me.

Not all revolvers. My SW .38 snubnose has a 5-round cylinder... and any 6-round or 7-round cylinder could have one chamber plugged.

Most rifles could be permanently choked.

There's nothing magical about the 5-shot number... I simply picked an arbitrary number. The point being, limiting capacity reduces the net rate-of-fire.

Reality? I don't see how that would violate "reality." You may not care for it for whatever reasons but it is a perfectly "realistic" proposal.

In my view such a limit would violate the 2nd Amendment which seeks to protect the possesion of personal arms "of current type".

And this is the crux, isn't it... what exactly can be restricted by this amendment. That is a question for the courts... and one of political philosophy... amendments can be amended and repealed, right? Think 18th amendment...

Restrictions on weapons is not the whole solution nor will it prevent such atrocities but I don't see that it can be rationally argued that it wouldn't reduce their number and severity.
*** Doesn't change the fact that functionaly there isn't much difference. One can get off a lot of shots with a traditional pump action or lever action rifle. While in combat with the army I learned that the most dangerous personal weapon to face was a pump shotgun or (even worse) a scoped bolt action centerfire rifle in the hands of a person who knew how to use them.

On that I disagree.

There is a huge difference between a semi-automatic rifle firing in 3-shot bursts out of a 30-round quick-change magazine and bolt-action rifle with an 8-round capacity, both in 3-second rate-of-fire and rounds-per-minute -- as well as increased likelihood of a hit when firing 3-round bursts.

It takes real skill to pull of the "rifleman" thing with a lever-action and it's simply not that accurate for all but the most skilled and practiced shooter.

And the comparision with a scoped sniper rifle... apples-and-oranges... in close range, the scoped rifle is of limited use due to problems of target acquisition with the scope.

In any event I can't see how any ban will affect the availabiliety of the firearms banned. We had a ban from 1994 until 2004 and at no time were the banned firearms not readily available in local sporting goods shops or gun shops. Same was true for high capasity magzines. The only people inconvienced where the law abiding shooters who had to pay higher prices for them.

That's because the ban was a feel-good restriction, not a real restriction... if you simply banned all gas-operated rifles and magazine-fed rifles - and put real teeth into the law... a great many would be seized and a great many more would be hidden away in caches... which would reduce their ready availability to many of these whackos.

It's a matter of national will and value, not a practical matter.

SleepyJean · Dec 19, 2012

I suppose my question (and I am not a psychiatric professional but have been watching our world for 50 years!) is, how do we define 'mental health?' And does it become that anyone slightly 'outside the box' of a generally defined term will be called mentally ill? And when/how does it begin? If it is progressive then what really needs to happen is to have venues available so that people can express themselves. I suppose I really believe much mental illness comes from a lack of being understood, although, obviously some are genetic or acquired at or near birth. But these are not the ones that necessarily become so enraged as to do such destruction. So, it still seems to me that a whole lot more 'community' and feeling of being 'ok' would go a long way in healing our world - and that those at most risk are the ones that will 'blow' but it doesn't mean the 'illness' is not contained within us all........

billyboblewis · Dec 19, 2012

I have worked in behavoral health at intervals since starting my career in 1967. The quality and supply of care has basicly diminished regularly since I started. Even in the last 10 years the quality has gone down significantly. Insurance companies are deciding what they think proper care is and they are way off base. If you send a troubled child for inpatient care rarely will they be there for more than a week. My daughter has had problems which needed addressing and they were by putting her on various drug therapies and discharging her. I have done better by giving her total attention and no drugs. My son who is now 18 was lucky to be treated when he was four with 1 month inpatient and another of outpatient therapy. He was followed by t he same psychiatrist for years and never went on drugs other than adhd pill. He has no suicidal or homicial thoughts and gets in no trouble at school. My daughter however who is only 16 is now in home school as the system could just not deal with her. We need a new comprehensive system of mental health facilities without severe limits on treatment.

In this country a scene all too common is happening over and over in this country: a deranged man enters a public facility and starts shooting everyone. Its found out later in the news that he was suffering from XYZ Mental Illness...
I wanted to start this thread after the tragic events that unfolded today in Connecticut (my condolences to all the families effected)
Now it seems like some of these events could have been stopped had someone noticed, or if the person had adequate access to mental health services
When i used to work in LA i did a lot of psychiatric transports on the ambulance (mainly 5150 holds). I've noticed a lot of these patients were given a couple meds and then thrown out on the street and forgotten till they act up again and go through the cycle again.
I personally think there should be more public education on noticing and reporting the signs of a person who is a threat to others or them selves or unable to care for them selves.
I also think there should be more funding towards mental health institutions as well.
note i am only speaking from what i have seen with my experience on the ambulance, if anyone who works at a psychiatric/mental health facility please share your thoughts as well
what do you think? is mental health/psychiatric care is inadequate in the US?

Guest343211 · Dec 19, 2012

Connecticut shooter used heavy-duty weapons registered to his mother to kill her and 25 others - NY Daily News
My apologies on the lack of knowledge on my part. A weapon that was capable of a 30 round magazine. Which I dunno, sounds to me like a significant weapon.
Just because it is legal, doesn't mean it is something one should run out and purchase when one has kids in the house. I said regulations and not banning, although what exactly does one use a gun capable of this destruction for??? Unless one is in the military. And even then, there's rules regarding proper storage and security.
Ah, yes, and the fertilizer issue....people who have less than honorable and perhaps evil intentions are everywhere. However, there's lots who don't have access to someone else's weaponry.

In reality, in a great number of cases, it would be easier to procure the fertilizer than someone else's gun.

We still don't know how he obtained the guns; i.e., how did he learn the combination or trip the combination to the gun locker.

Personally, I am not convinced this person worked entirely alone. There is a lot of suspicious stuff about the whole story. And that is all I will say about that.

The person didn't want to wait to try to get a gun in his own name. . .hmmm. . . If she didn't have guns; he certainly could have hooked up with any number of people that would assist him in getting some illegally.

People that are bent on doing things like this are not going to care about legalities, anymore than he cared or was kept from entering the school b/c of the new "buzz-in" system and a foyer.

There is a lot with this story that does not gel. I fear we will never know a lot about this situation and others like it.

ritamaecannon · Dec 19, 2012

While I was reading the previous threads the question kept coming up in my head, what is it about our culture that is compounding the already obvious problems. Music that openly celebrates violence. Those very realistic computer games that young children are playing that are very violent. Children watching violent TV. Lack of supervision and lack of boundries. Mental illness is painful for the patient and the people who are around them.

PMFB-RN, RN · Dec 20, 2012

Make it up? Nope.

*** Yes you did. What you gave was a description and not a recognized definition. Since we are making them up I choose to define an "assault weapon" as any weapon used to assault a person or group of people. Anything from a baseball bat to a nuke. See that's easy.

How do I propose getting rid of the elements? Easy... simply declare illegal any weapon with any of those features.

*** LOL, yes we have such a long history of everything declaired illegal suddenly disapearing. Ever since drugs were declared illegal we haven't had any...... er, wait. Also in our system of government things can't simply be declared illlegal.

The point is, the problem isn't one of difficulty defining the weapon, it's simply a matter of political will and personal/national philosophy.

*** Wether the personal/national philosophy is a problems or not is only an opinion. If a definition isn't a problem then I would think we would have one.

Not all revolvers. My SW .38 snubnose has a 5-round cylinder...

*** Stating the obvious.

and any 6-round or 7-round cylinder could have one chamber plugged.

*** LOL! How could that happen? Do you think I am going to surrender my collection of Colt 1873 Peacemakers worth thousands each to have their value destroyed in such a manner? Who do you think would do so? Given that there is no national firearms registration how would you locate all the millions of revolvers to alter them? Who would pay for that?

Most rifles could be permanently choked.

*** How are you going to find them?

There's nothing magical about the 5-shot number... I simply picked an arbitrary number. The point being, limiting capacity reduces the net rate-of-fire.

*** Maybe but unlikely given the impossibiliety of actually getting it done. What are you going to do turn tens of millions of citizens into criminals when they refuse to submit to suck a requirment?

Reality? I don't see how that would violate "reality." You may not care for it for whatever reasons but it is a perfectly "realistic" proposal.

*** Yes like making drugs illegal actually got rid of them from our society

And this is the crux, isn't it... what exactly can be restricted by this amendment. That is a question for the courts... and one of political philosophy... amendments can be amended and repealed, right?

*** Yes they can and if the goal is the gut an amendment then that s exactly what should be done. Change the constition.

There is a huge difference between a semi-automatic rifle firing in 3-shot bursts out of a 30-round quick-change magazine and bolt-action rifle with an 8-round capacity, both in 3-second rate-of-fire and rounds-per-minute -- as well as increased likelihood of a hit when firing 3-round bursts.

*** I well understand the technical difference. I also understand that reducing rate fo fire does not mean reduced lethaliety. I know I have been there. I have observed one well trained rifleman keep and entire platoon to highly motivated, but poorly trained milita armed with automatic weapons at bay.

It takes real skill to pull of the "rifleman" thing with a lever-action and it's simply not that accurate for all but the most skilled and practiced shooter.

*** You seem to be equating rate of fire with lethality. That isn't realiety. I know better.

And the comparision with a scoped sniper rifle... apples-and-oranges... in close range, the scoped rifle is of limited use due to problems of target acquisition with the scope.

*** Once again stating the obvious. At close range the traditional "duck gun", a pump shotgun rules the range.

That's because the ban was a feel-good restriction, not a real restriction...

*** Yes obviously. That WAS my point. And a feel good restriction is all we will get.

if you simply banned all gas-operated rifles and magazine-fed rifles - and put real teeth into the law... a great many would be seized and a great many more would be hidden away in caches... which would reduce their ready availability to many of these whackos.

*** "_IF_" LOL, I thought you were serious. Sure we could ban abortion tomarrow in therory. How likely is that to happen? I am thinking of what is realistic, not what could happen in your perfect world where large numbers of people and the congress and president would do exactly what you suggest.

It's a matter of national will and value, not a practical matter.

*** As a practical matter there is huge variety of values and wildly variable politial will in our country.

olddragger · Dec 20, 2012

I worked forensic psy for 5 years. You cannot predict violence.

Gun control is like treating morbid obesity with just diet pills alone. It just will not stop people killing people. Nothing will stop people killing people. It's very sad.

Also, I prefer that politicians to not further dismantle our constitution. We are loosing too many personnel freedoms as it is all in the name of its better for the greater good. Right, who's good?

Comprehensive effective Psychiatric care has been roadblocked by the people who control the money. These patients are the easiest group for them to restrict benefits. This group of people do not have the power to challenge the Government or insurance companies.

Even parity did not fully materialize.

Can anyone tell me what "Normal" is?

Sammy Mendez · Dec 20, 2012

I agree Topaz 7, I worked in a locked psychiatric facility with some very disturbed clients. I believe that educating the public would contribute to enforcing security for the public, and most imprtantly, addressing the needs of mental patients. In my experience I gained valuable knowledge in understanding the complexities of various disorders, and find this work very interesting. Unfortunatly, as you stated there is still a very strong stigma regarding mental patients, it very sad but true. I just finished a book entitled "Without Conscience" by Robert D. Hare PhD. He gave insight on this disturbing world, also he arms the reader on how to notice certain behavioral patterns. He states that, " In everyones life you will, at one time face a psycopath" Also I noted in a television documentary of reputable standards they quoted saying, "One in five children suffer from some sort of mental disorder", thats an alarming rate. I was so taken by what I've read, and experienced in the course of my career, that I seached to contribute my part in the mental care needs of the children, that I'm in the process of volunteering some time with families, and the needs of the babies to help deter any progression of mental illness, and perhaps help curtail any horrific tradgedy that may arise from non-intervention. As a nurse I believe it my moral responsibility to respond with some sort of action. Good luck with your work, they need us............Peace.

allnurses Guide · Dec 20, 2012

Lol. Machine gun?
This reply is to the qoute that precedes the above quote.
This is a perfectly legal rifle. It's how you modify it that makes it legal or not. Restricting these will not stop violence. This has been proven. People are being reactionary?
Btw, if I want to go hunting in Alaska or Maine, a hand gun probably is not gonna work, depending upon what I am hunting. If I am camping in a number of areas, a hand gun is probably not gonna slow down a threatening bear that much, if at all. This is ALL about an AGENDA, which is to progressively limit rights that many elsewhere in the world do not have. People need to see what's going on here.
Such bans have not and will not stop or limit violence and death related To such violence.
Remember Oklahoma City bombing?
Dude used fertilizer, didn't he?
Gonna ban fertilizer?

This thread is about psychiatric care in the United States.

I wonder how it would be if mental health care were as easy to get as the weapons bought by the Aurora Colorado shooter and used to kill little children last week?

I do want to put one fact here and then return to discussing psychiatric care.

Or this thread will be more appropriate for the break Room.

Ammonium nitrate fertilizer is regulated, not banned.

More than 12 years after Timothy J. McVeigh used ammonium nitrate fertilizer to blow up the Oklahoma City federal building, Congress quietly passed legislation this month to regulate sales of the explosive.
But the Secure Handling of Ammonium Nitrate Act of 2007, part of an appropriations measure signed Wednesday by President Bush, falls far short of the strict law that some in the counter-terrorism community and federal law enforcement were hoping for.
Fertilizer law seen as weak on security - Los Angeles Times

The "Secure Handling of Ammonium Nitrate Act of 2007" -- http://thomas.loc.gov/home/gpoxmlc110/h1680_ih.xml

PMFB-RN, RN · Dec 20, 2012

This thread is about psychiatric care in the United States.
I wonder how it would be if mental health care were as easy to get as the weapons bought by the Aurora Colorado shooter and used to kill little children last week?

*** That would be great! However I think mental health care advocates don't have the political power to make it so.

BTW with one phone call I can have literaly tons (liquid or pellets) of ammonium nitrate fertilizer delivered to my front door. It's MUCH easier to purchase than a firearm.

Guest343211 · Dec 21, 2012

*** That would be great! However I think mental health care advocates don't have the political power to make it so.
BTW with one phone call I can have literaly tons (liquid or pellets) of ammonium nitrate fertilizer delivered to my front door. It's MUCH easier to purchase than a firearm.

Absolutely.

What some people in our society seem to avoid or go out of their way to not understand is that every law that is made has to be balanced against its affect on individual human rights--to be maintained collectively through our system and kept in check by our Constitution.

I realize the globalists and the UN and other anti-Constitutionalists would like to bypass the freedoms supported within the context of the original intents in our Constitution. It's unique to a more truly free society. Other societies that do not have these principles and precedents all have societies where people have much less human liberty--and where the potential for maintaining any human liberty is nearly impossible. Again, the globalists don't care, b/c they foolishly believe freedoms can be forfeited for the supposed (and really unproven in the case of gun control) "greater good." The Jews and Israel have learned the horrible suffering associated with bypassing these kinds of principles and precendents.

There is no way that any government and its criminals should have access to weapons for dominance or "protection," while the moral individuals within the society (We the people) go without such protection. It's absolute insanity, and it guarantees tyranny.

About mental health: You have to have individuals with the will or the opportunity to develop the will for sound mental health. You can only force people to seek and stay with getting appropriate mental health treatment if they have been shown to be a danger to themselves or others.

We can argue all day the predictability of that with regard to the individuals that committed these more current atrocities, but it's Monday morning quarterbacking.

With regard to the Connecticut shooting, we have so much limited information as to the specifics of what was going on with the mother and son. There are factors of which we just don't know and probably will never know. If this had been a situation where the individual had demonstrated a clear tendency toward such violence to others in the past, that would be different. If he had shown a clear tendency to hurt himself that would be different. If he had had shown some kind of animal cruelty that also would have made the process of subverting his rights for forced mental treatment easier as well. To my knowledge, no such things were demonstrated in any clear manner prior to the event.

People are being emotionally and politically reactionary, and it will do more overall destruction than any possible good. We know this from prior studies as well. Weighing the benefits versus the risks, gun control just does not pan out for a free society. That is to say, the benefits of doing so, do not outweigh the ultimate risks.

It's a big picture thing, and when one doesn't know and understand the very basis for the Second Amendment, it almost seems like trying to ask a person with a 60 IQ to understand molecular physics.

Furthermore, with regard to mental health treatment, we can make grand leaps about forcing people into locked mental health treatment without a proper demonstration of danger from the individual.

In our society and system of government, we the people are to strive to weigh governmental responses to events against the real and potential dangers of removal or usurpation of rights against all of the society's individuals. That is how our Constitution rolls, and it is how any American that truly values the intent of the US Constitution should roll.

Now, again, globalist poo poo the US Constitution--quite foolishly I would add.